Advertisement

Journal of Psycholinguistic Research

, Volume 40, Issue 3, pp 195–203 | Cite as

Differential Sensitivity to the Gender of a Person by English and Chinese Speakers

  • Jenn-Yeu Chen
  • Jui-Ju Su
Article

Abstract

Can a linguistic device of a language orient its speakers to a particular aspect of the world and result in increased sensitivity to that aspect? The question was examined with respect to the biological gender marker in English and the lack of it in Chinese. In Experiment 1, English and Chinese participants listened to stories and answered gender and non-gender related questions immediately after. It was found that, relative to the non-gender-related questions, the English participants were much faster and more accurate than the Chinese participants in answering the gender-related questions. In Experiment 2, English and Chinese participants were asked to determine which of two pictures matched the sentence shown immediately before. Relative to the non-gender-related sentences, the English participants were less slower and more accurate than the Chinese participants in responding to the gender-related sentences. The findings support the view that language can have an effect on information processing in human cognition.

Keywords

Linguistic relativity Biological gender Chinese English 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Arnold J. E., Eisenband J. G., Brown-Schimdt S., Trueswell J. C. (2000) The rapid use of gender information: Evidence of the time course of pronoun resolution from eyetracking. Cognition 76: B13–B26PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Boroditsky L. (2001) Does language shape thought? Mandarin and English speakers’ conceptions of time. Cognitive Psychology 43(1): 1–22PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Boroditsky, L., Fuhrman, O., & McCormick, K. (in press). Do English and Mandarin speakers think about time differently? Cognition. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2010.09.010.
  4. Boroditsky, L., Ham, W., & Ramscar, M. (2002). Tense markers and event perception: Comparing English and Indonesian speakers. Poster presented at 8th Annual Conference on Architectures and Mechanisms for Language Processing. Tenerife, Spain.Google Scholar
  5. Boroditsky L., Schmidt L., Phillips W. (2003) Sex, syntax, and semantics. In: Gentner D., Goldin-Meadow S. (eds) Language in mind: Advances in the study of language and cognition. The MIT Press, Cambridge, pp 61–79Google Scholar
  6. Carreiras M., Carriedo N., Alonso M. A., Fernández A. (1997) The role of verb tense and verb aspect in the foregrounding of information during reading. Memory & Cognition 25: 438–446CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Casasanto D., Boroditsky L. (2008) Time in the mind: Using space to think about time. Cognition 106: 579–593PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chang, B.-M. (2007). Ta cong nali lai? Xiandai nuxing zhicheng de yuanliu kaoshi. Lishi Yuekan, 237, 123–127. (Where does ‘she’ come from? An enquiry into the origin of the modern feminine pronoun. History Monthly, 237, 123–127.)Google Scholar
  9. Chao Y.-R. (1968) A grammar of spoken Chines. University of California Press, CaliforniaGoogle Scholar
  10. Chen J.Y. (2007) Do Chinese and English speakers think about time differently? Failure of replicating Boroditsky (2001). Cognition 104(2): 427–436PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Davidoff J., Davies I., Roberson D. (1999) Colour categories in a stone-age tribe. Nature 402(6762): 604–605CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Gentner D. (2003) Why we’re so smart. In: Gentner D., Goldin-Meadow S. (eds) Language in mind: Advances in the study of language and cognition. The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, pp 195–235Google Scholar
  13. Gentner D., Goldin-Meadow S. (2003) Language in mind: Advances in the study of language and cognition. The MIT Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  14. Gordon P. (2004) Numerical cognition without words: Evidence from Amazonia. Science 306: 496–499PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gumperz J. J., Levinson S. C. (1996) Rethinking linguistic relativity. Cambridge University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  16. Hunt E., Agnoli F. (1991) The Whorfian hypothesis: A cognitive psychology perspective. Psychology Review 98(3): 377–389CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Imai M., Gentner D. (1997) A crosslinguistic study of early word meaning: Universal ontology and linguistic influence. Cognition 62: 169–200PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. January D., Kako E. (2007) Re-evaluating evidence for the linguistic relativity hypothesis: Response to Boroditsky (2001). Cognition 104(2): 417–426PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kay P. (1996) Intra-speaker relativity. In: Gumperz J. J., Levinson S. C. (eds) Rethinking linguistic relativity. Cambridge University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  20. Konishi T. (1993) The semantics of grammatical gender: A cross-cultural study. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 22: 519–534PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kuczaj S. A. II, Hendry J. L. (2003) Does language help animals think?. In: Gentner D., Goldin-Meadow S. (eds) Language in mind: Advances in the study of language and cognition. The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, pp 237–275Google Scholar
  22. Levinson S. C., Kita S., Haun D. B. M., Rasch B. H. (2002) Returning the tables: Language affects spatial reasoning. Cognition 84(2): 155–188PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Li P., Bates E., MacWhinney B. (1993) Processing a language without inflections: A reaction time study of sentence interpretation in Chinese. Journal of Memory and Language 32: 169–192CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Lucy J. A. (1996) Grammatical categories and cognition: A case study of the linguistic relativity hypothesis. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  25. MacWhinney B. (1987) The competition model. In: MacWhinney B. (Ed.) Mechanisms of language acquisition. Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ, pp 249–308Google Scholar
  26. MacWhinney B. (2005) A unified model of language acquisition. In: Judith Kroll, De Annette Groot (eds) Handbook of bilingualism: Psycholinguistic approaches. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 49–67Google Scholar
  27. Roberson D., Davidoff J., Davies I. R. L, Shapiro L. R. (2005) Color categories: Evidence for the cultural relativity hypothesis. Cognitive Psychology 50(4): 378–411PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Saalbach H., Imai M. (2007) Scope of linguistic influence: Does a classifier system alter object concepts?. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 136: 485–501CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Sera M. D., Elieff C., Forbes J., Burch M. C., Rodriguez W. (2002) When language affects cognition and when it does not: An analysis of grammatical gender and classification. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 131: 377–397CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Spelke E. S. (2003) What makes us smart? Core knowledge and natural language. In: Gentner D., Goldin-Meadow S. (eds) Language in mind: Advances in the study of language and cognition. The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, pp 277–311Google Scholar
  31. Su, J.-J., Chen, J.-Y., & O’Seaghdha, P. G. (2009). Chinese speakers' sensitivity to the time of an action is related to the extent of their experience with English. Poster presented at the 15th Annual Conference on Architectures and Mechanisms for Language Processing, 7–9 September 2009, Barcelona.Google Scholar
  32. Vigliocco G., Vinson D. P., Paganelli F., Dworzynski K. (2005) Grammatical gender effects on cognition: Implications for language learning and language use. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 134: 501–520CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Whorf B. L. (1956) Carroll, J. B. (Ed.) Language, thought and reality: Selected writings of Benjamin Lee Whorf. The MIT Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.National Cheng Kung UniversityTainanTaiwan, R.O.C.
  2. 2.Institute of Cognitive ScienceNational Cheng Kung UniversityTainanTaiwan, R.O.C.

Personalised recommendations